I remember seeing this on news on TV - but it only got about two sentences worth of coverage.
European court condemns police misuse of stop and search | UK news | The Guardian
Full-body scanner blind to bomb parts
Most of the uproar over full-body scanners has focused on privacy concerns. There's one larger question, however, that hasn't received much scrutiny by the chattering classes: do the damnable things work?
One German TV station says "Nein."
But they are super-expensive and shiny and hi-tech and allow total strangers to oogle your winky - your boobies - and your body fat - so they get to stay.
Yup, The human race is doomed.
Full-body scanner blind to bomb parts • The Register
equality? - we don't want no steeeenking equality here
Labour's poor have made no progress at all.
Unequal Britain: richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest.
Tories are still the party of privilege
So there's a new report on equality out.
Wow - you mean for the past 40 years the rich have got a LOT richer, an awful lot richer, whereas the middle classes have got only a tiny little bit richer and the poor - they haven't moved at all.
Bears shit in the woods you know, amazing isn't it.
Why possibly could this be? I dunno - maybe it's something to do with NuLabour just carrying on in all the things Thatcher and co. started in the 80s?
Even though NuLabour likes to claim credit for bringing in the minimum wage (and it is good that they started somewhere) - it's always been absurdly low - it's not by any means an living wage. Furthermore by allowing employers to pay out such low wages and subsidizing employees' rubbish wages with things like child allowances and tax credits - it only keeps dodgy businesses - the ones that by rights should fail - going, only perpetuating the situation. That's a high price to pay just keep people off the unemployment statistics. One of the biggest hidden scandals of the past few decades is the situation of the working poor.
And now leaping in with the campaigning rhetoric - who's this? The Tory party? Claiming they can solve all the country's problems - the very people who got this whole inequality ball going? What about their insane notions of the 80s that if they took the brakes and regulation off the economy that by allowing the rich to get get richer - everyone would benefit by trickle-down. IE if they let the bloated bastards feast as much as they could - then a few crumbs would drop off the table for us to fight over. How long will it be before they the Tories return to that stupid idea. [Although both parties are pretty good at coming up with really very, very stupid ideas.]
BOTH these parties are totally discredited since they've both failed so miserably (well, except for catering for the super rich)... and will anything change for the better come the next election? No. I wouldn't bet on it. Not when most people persist on dividing themselves into voting for one or the other of them. The masses still won't give the Lib-Dems a chance - 'because they've had no experience of being in power' - er, haven't the Tories been out of power for the past 14 years (or whatever it is). So that's a totally lame excuse. Yet the Lib-Dems are the ones who flashed up warning signs about the recession long before it happened. They're the ones who never supported the Iraq invasion, and so on.
Oh god *bangs head on table* the great British public are so effing goddamn stupid. We're doomed.
*Bangs head some more*
Unequal Britain: richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest.
Tories are still the party of privilege
So there's a new report on equality out.
Wow - you mean for the past 40 years the rich have got a LOT richer, an awful lot richer, whereas the middle classes have got only a tiny little bit richer and the poor - they haven't moved at all.
Bears shit in the woods you know, amazing isn't it.
Why possibly could this be? I dunno - maybe it's something to do with NuLabour just carrying on in all the things Thatcher and co. started in the 80s?
Even though NuLabour likes to claim credit for bringing in the minimum wage (and it is good that they started somewhere) - it's always been absurdly low - it's not by any means an living wage. Furthermore by allowing employers to pay out such low wages and subsidizing employees' rubbish wages with things like child allowances and tax credits - it only keeps dodgy businesses - the ones that by rights should fail - going, only perpetuating the situation. That's a high price to pay just keep people off the unemployment statistics. One of the biggest hidden scandals of the past few decades is the situation of the working poor.
And now leaping in with the campaigning rhetoric - who's this? The Tory party? Claiming they can solve all the country's problems - the very people who got this whole inequality ball going? What about their insane notions of the 80s that if they took the brakes and regulation off the economy that by allowing the rich to get get richer - everyone would benefit by trickle-down. IE if they let the bloated bastards feast as much as they could - then a few crumbs would drop off the table for us to fight over. How long will it be before they the Tories return to that stupid idea. [Although both parties are pretty good at coming up with really very, very stupid ideas.]
BOTH these parties are totally discredited since they've both failed so miserably (well, except for catering for the super rich)... and will anything change for the better come the next election? No. I wouldn't bet on it. Not when most people persist on dividing themselves into voting for one or the other of them. The masses still won't give the Lib-Dems a chance - 'because they've had no experience of being in power' - er, haven't the Tories been out of power for the past 14 years (or whatever it is). So that's a totally lame excuse. Yet the Lib-Dems are the ones who flashed up warning signs about the recession long before it happened. They're the ones who never supported the Iraq invasion, and so on.
Oh god *bangs head on table* the great British public are so effing goddamn stupid. We're doomed.
*Bangs head some more*
Govt. to everybody: "Right to privacy? We'll have none of that."
Airline passengers have 'no right' to refuse naked body scanners,
Ministers ignore human rights advice and rule out option of pat-down search when scanner goes on trial at Heathrow next week.
So let me get this right....
Despite there being a whole raft of heightened security measures put in place ever since Sept 11th 2001 - the various Airport security and Intelligence agencies STILL make a massive fail and let some nutjob on a flight with explosive underpants. Proving how useless they are. So despite this - they think extra extra extra security and a magic box will solve everything...
Instead of - oh I don't know, having a internal inquiry into how security and Intelligence Agencies failed so miserably in erm - doing their jobs. Because - if they don't sort themselves out - it's just going to happen again.
[Update: and from German tv here's your actual proof there's a good chance it will happen again because those body scanners can't pick up on all-plastic bottles and liquid chemicals. Uh-oh. Extra inconvenience, extra waiting times, extra expensive equipment , extra expense all round and still with the Fail. Someone somewhere needs to get a clue.]
um wow - a gay decides to become not-gay and gets to write an article in the Times about it.
The day I decided to stop being gay
Twenty years after he came out, Patrick Muirhead, 41, explains why he is suddenly feeling the appeal of the opposite sex.
So suddenly he's frothing at the groin at the mere thought of poo-tang (is that how it's spelt?) and getting uncontrollable constant stiffies at the sight of hooters?
Um - no, he had a haircut at his barbers - saw a father and son - and oh, suddenly started feeling envious and a bit broody. The rest is well, put bluntly, homophobia really - both internalized: "I was never convinced of my sexuality" and externalized: "Civil partnerships really are little more than theatrical shams involving men making a point in matching wedding cravats, of embarrassed grandparents and monstrously camp multi-tier cakes." He throws around the words 'abnormal', 'aberration', 'loathsome' in his descriptions of homosexuality.
But hey - what a great way to get some snide gay-bashing into a supposedly, what do I call it? a 'proper' 'grown-up' paper?
I'm just left with some imponderable questions:
1. Who is this person really? How ever did he get to write this article for 'The Times'.
2. I also wonder how many stories/articles there are in the Times that are pro-gay as opposed to anti-gay. [I know that stories about Christian 'boot camps' that purport to cure homosexuality by replacing it with fervent fundamentalist Christianity are always popular. In the Times - as in the Guardian.)
[Although these are both old examples - I've read more recent article on dead tree - they're just harder to find online. (Why are newspaper's own search engines so pitiful?)]
3. Of course - there's no news in all those gay folk who are going about their lives being happy and content with their sexuality. There's no headlines for them proclaiming: "The day I just kept on being gay and never stopped."
Twenty years after he came out, Patrick Muirhead, 41, explains why he is suddenly feeling the appeal of the opposite sex.
So suddenly he's frothing at the groin at the mere thought of poo-tang (is that how it's spelt?) and getting uncontrollable constant stiffies at the sight of hooters?
Um - no, he had a haircut at his barbers - saw a father and son - and oh, suddenly started feeling envious and a bit broody. The rest is well, put bluntly, homophobia really - both internalized: "I was never convinced of my sexuality" and externalized: "Civil partnerships really are little more than theatrical shams involving men making a point in matching wedding cravats, of embarrassed grandparents and monstrously camp multi-tier cakes." He throws around the words 'abnormal', 'aberration', 'loathsome' in his descriptions of homosexuality.
But hey - what a great way to get some snide gay-bashing into a supposedly, what do I call it? a 'proper' 'grown-up' paper?
I'm just left with some imponderable questions:
1. Who is this person really? How ever did he get to write this article for 'The Times'.
2. I also wonder how many stories/articles there are in the Times that are pro-gay as opposed to anti-gay. [I know that stories about Christian 'boot camps' that purport to cure homosexuality by replacing it with fervent fundamentalist Christianity are always popular. In the Times - as in the Guardian.)
[Although these are both old examples - I've read more recent article on dead tree - they're just harder to find online. (Why are newspaper's own search engines so pitiful?)]
3. Of course - there's no news in all those gay folk who are going about their lives being happy and content with their sexuality. There's no headlines for them proclaiming: "The day I just kept on being gay and never stopped."
Rickets!
TV and computer games blamed for return of rickets
Apparently.
No mention there of the whole 20th Century paranoia of Paedophiles? The on-going bizarre notion that any time a child is out of any parent or child minder's sight even for a moment - a paedophile will take the chance to ATTACK! So kiddies have to be driven to and from school every day - and then kept indoors at night. To keep them safe, safe, safe. All indoors - and consequently away from any direct sunlight.
Or that for a long time fear of the depleted ozone layer meant parents were advised to keep their precious bundles of joy out of the sun - or covered in inch-thick layers of sun block - for fear of getting skin CANCER!
Parents can't win.
Apparently.
No mention there of the whole 20th Century paranoia of Paedophiles? The on-going bizarre notion that any time a child is out of any parent or child minder's sight even for a moment - a paedophile will take the chance to ATTACK! So kiddies have to be driven to and from school every day - and then kept indoors at night. To keep them safe, safe, safe. All indoors - and consequently away from any direct sunlight.
Or that for a long time fear of the depleted ozone layer meant parents were advised to keep their precious bundles of joy out of the sun - or covered in inch-thick layers of sun block - for fear of getting skin CANCER!
Parents can't win.
'Tories covered up source of super-rich backer's donation' claim
---starting as they mean to go on? No surprise there then.
How did Pantsman conquer the world?
This is an article which is a longer, more involved take on what I believe: whenever they step up with extra security, it only makes air travellers lives that much more miserable and irritating, and people's day to day lives more difficult and when Governments start sabre rattling at other countries - it's then that the terrorists have done their job and done it well. Terrorists are never about trying to kill as many people as possible -they're about generating publicity for themselves and causing fear and disruption - that's why they're called terrorists. Terror. Fear. D'uh - the clue is in the word. and the powers that be - they fall for it every. single. time. Well. the poor dears - they have to be seen to be doing something. even if what they do is incredibly stupid, and only tips us ever closer to a totalitarian state.
*Sighs*
How did Pantsman conquer the world? | spiked
*Sighs*
How did Pantsman conquer the world? | spiked
gadget lust: Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W1
Yay - I want one - but not at that price £430 - don't they know there's a recession on?
Stereoscopy.com - Stereo Cameras:Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W1
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 Review
Stereoscopy.com - Stereo Cameras:Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W1
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 Review
Amsterdam airports to bring in full body scan machines
Read the article - then ponder...
Apparently normal procedures were followed or so they're telling us - you know despite that this Abdulmuttalab chap did a fair number of things that should have got alarm bells ringing and marked him for extra scrutiny at security gates, buying one way tickets with cash, yada yada yada, - I know I've been patted down at security for merely wearing blue jeans and a denim jacket rather than a suit. So general intelligence and even the man's father ringing the authorities because he was so worried his son had fallen into the hands of extremists - didn't get him marked out for checks. So big fail on normal security there.
So... they think it's time to bring out the hi-tech solution. An electronic way to check out your boobies and your dingle-dangler. Lovely. That will protect us all from evil terrorists. Sure it will.
And in the same artcle - it says 1. There's no evidence Abdulmuttalab had been to Amsterdam before the flight to Detroit. Huh? Wha...? I mean talk about gates, bolts, horses after...
2. There's no guarantee these machines would've worked 100% to detect him anyway...
But that aside... my gripe is - oh, so here comes a promise of humiliating electronic body scans. Wow, what larks for the already power-crazed airport security staff (seriously where do they get these people from. They're really weird individuals - and they're the same the world over. How's that work?)
Next I wonder how long it'll be before we get our first leaked picture of the scan of some celebrity, after that when we'll get the first court case against the machine makers from a frequent flier who's developed cancer from repeated exposure from the scanners - or one of the staff who'll be working with the things day in - day out for years - followed by the first malfunctioning machine that will microwave someone to death.
Doesn't anyone realise that every time they bring in ever more intrusive security measures (that plainly aren't really working) as a response to an incident - it's actually the terrorists who won a little bit more.
Apparently normal procedures were followed or so they're telling us - you know despite that this Abdulmuttalab chap did a fair number of things that should have got alarm bells ringing and marked him for extra scrutiny at security gates, buying one way tickets with cash, yada yada yada, - I know I've been patted down at security for merely wearing blue jeans and a denim jacket rather than a suit. So general intelligence and even the man's father ringing the authorities because he was so worried his son had fallen into the hands of extremists - didn't get him marked out for checks. So big fail on normal security there.
So... they think it's time to bring out the hi-tech solution. An electronic way to check out your boobies and your dingle-dangler. Lovely. That will protect us all from evil terrorists. Sure it will.
And in the same artcle - it says 1. There's no evidence Abdulmuttalab had been to Amsterdam before the flight to Detroit. Huh? Wha...? I mean talk about gates, bolts, horses after...
2. There's no guarantee these machines would've worked 100% to detect him anyway...
But that aside... my gripe is - oh, so here comes a promise of humiliating electronic body scans. Wow, what larks for the already power-crazed airport security staff (seriously where do they get these people from. They're really weird individuals - and they're the same the world over. How's that work?)
Next I wonder how long it'll be before we get our first leaked picture of the scan of some celebrity, after that when we'll get the first court case against the machine makers from a frequent flier who's developed cancer from repeated exposure from the scanners - or one of the staff who'll be working with the things day in - day out for years - followed by the first malfunctioning machine that will microwave someone to death.
Doesn't anyone realise that every time they bring in ever more intrusive security measures (that plainly aren't really working) as a response to an incident - it's actually the terrorists who won a little bit more.
er... no
Women 'drinking too much at home because they can't measure units'
Duh. It's not because they can't measure units - it's because they drink to get drunk. Most people drink to get drunk. And why do they do that? Because being drunk offers a temporary distraction to how relentlessly awful life is most of the time. A life where we're bombarded with a constant stream of lies... all pretending an answer to: 'you'd be so much happier if..."
Duh. It's not because they can't measure units - it's because they drink to get drunk. Most people drink to get drunk. And why do they do that? Because being drunk offers a temporary distraction to how relentlessly awful life is most of the time. A life where we're bombarded with a constant stream of lies... all pretending an answer to: 'you'd be so much happier if..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)